None of what you said is really contradictory to anything I said. Everything you just said makes perfect sense. I said it looks like a human did a bunch of them, and did a pretty excellent / creative job, and then that gen AI did some of the vast selection of others.

I think I laid out pretty clearly why I think that. Jennifer Daniel didn’t make the fairy picture with a square sunset for a head and also a square sunset on the tip of its wand. For another thing, there are about 186,000 combinations of 2 of the 610 emojis on offer for this tool. It seems unlikely to me that any single human being would do every single one. It would start to multiply into years of full-time work time spent on them pretty quickly, even with some automation, and there are clearly AI tools that can fill in a bunch of the non-critical-to-get-perfect ones, so why not. Some seem clearly likely to be from a human, some sort of look like automated templates that aren’t gen AI (like the alternatives next to a “downward chart trend line”), and some are gen AI.

Anyway, I’m not trying to argue with you. I agree with most of what you said including that the human-generated ones are awesome, which is why I posted this.

Except, it is not a template. Even leaving aside that “put the sunset image in a square and make it a fairy’s head” would never be the template that any human decided to use to combine a butterfly with anything, look at this:

That’s moon + butterfly overlaid with 50% opacity over sunset + butterfly. It’s a different fairy image, not just a different scale, but a different shape with trivial differences. Which there would be no reason at all for other than the generator getting rerun with new parameters for the different input images. It’s gen AI.

It seems like you and maybe at least one other person are just not grasping what I am saying here.

A human did not make that decision. Sounds like it’s possible that maybe you are reading a lie that Google is telling you, and believing it is truth, I don’t really know, but yes they’re using generative AI for at least some of them.

It sort of looks to me like some of them are human-created (or at least human-curated), and some of the crappier or more nonsensical ones are created by generative AI.

I couldn’t find any ones that it would refuse to do – maybe it’s recently started using an AI image generator for those ones?

Edit: Okay, now I am sure that it’s using generative AI. I’m not trying to talk smack about the majority of them that are pretty reasonable and even sometimes creative, but also, sunset + butterfly yields:

They talked about that, buying from the US is apparently the cheapest way to get the helicopter they wanted. They did look at other options.

I’m not trying to be overly self-promotional, but rss.ponder.cat + piefed.social’s “feeds” could probably do this very well. I actually really like the combination of having aggregated RSS feeds I can control, along with other people voting on them so particularly interesting stuff from them get surfaced more than other stuff.

Lol

If you know what you’re doing, then sure. I do not. I know too many stories of people who attacked delicate machinery with their good ideas and then got all surprised when it afterwards functioned worse, and not better.

Why do you hate fun

https://loops.video/

This kind of thing needs to happen way more often.

Moderators don’t “own” the communities they host. They’re just taking responsibility for the space. I actually really wish that their effort was rewarded with more of recognition and less of headache, but the answer to that is certainly not to say that they are the “boss” of the users in that community, and the users need to do what they say.

It’s especially hilarious for 196 because they weren’t actually taking on the moderation responsibility. Ada was. So they just wanted to show up and be the boss without doing anything in particular to help anybody. I hope the new community finds blahaj-native moderators and they find some fulfillment in keeping the space healthy and organized.

The responsive design on this page is well done.

Sounds like I got my answer. Usually, if someone makes vague insinuations against someone, it’s fair to ask for details. Making snide remarks to smear someone, but then refusing to elaborate with details that could be verified, is weird.

You already did smear the man. That’s why I’m asking about the details, because I suspect that you have none and are smearing him unfairly.

It’s not the first questionable thing Dansup has done and it won’t be the last.

Can you explain more about what are these questionable things?

Full disclosure, I tend to agree with FlyingSquid in the instance that kicked all of this off. I don’t have a clear opinion of them as a mod, but personally I wish the LW mods would do a lot more about the “Kamala Harris = Hitler” type of misinformation that gets a free pass on a lot of LW.

FlyingSquid comes across as perfectly reasonable in this conversation. Their arguments that another mod thanked them for reporting stuff, that it’s two reports over the course of two weeks a week which is hardly excessive, and then when the two people couldn’t see eye to eye, they said they just wouldn’t flag anything, sounds all perfectly reasonable and sensible. For some reason that wasn’t okay, and the conversation got personal, with Blackbeard constantly posting these aggrieved attacks about how FlyingSquid was being childish if he didn’t continue to report things in someone else’s community occasionally, but never anything that the mods there thought was not worthy of removal. And then petulantly refusing to say something along the lines of, “Of course you’re welcome to post there if you want” when asked repeatedly if it was okay for them to just post and participate still.

I haven’t seen any Discord harassment, so maybe I missed something, but if this is what gets posted as justification for why FlyingSquid is a terrible moderator, I suspect that the “harassment” is more of the same. Maybe it’s along the lines of “not saying exactly what I want you to say, or having conversation with other people where you say things I don’t want you to say.” People are allowed to disagree with each other over what is misinformation, or choose not to report content in someone else’s community if they get some hostile responses when they do. Trying to order someone else around and then getting personally insulting with them when they politely tell you “No, I don’t agree with how you see it,” is ridiculous.

Edit: I don’t know why I said two weeks, it was one week.

ml: We’re going to tear down the whole capitalistic structure, nothing short of full revolution will suffice.

Also ml: Hey stop! You’re gonna get me in trouble!

I do the same thing when people post full text, but I’m also not claiming to be anti-establishment. I want online newspapers to make a living and survive, that’s why I do it.